Environmental Monitoring and Assessment (2006) 119: 201–231

DOI: 10.1007/s10661-005-9023-6 
c Springer 2006

QUALIDEX – A NEW SOFTWARE FOR GENERATING WATER

QUALITY INDICE

CHINMOY SARKAR and S. A. ABBASI∗

Centre for Pollution Control and Energy Technology, Pondicherry University,
Pondicherry-605014, India
(∗ author for correspondence, e-mail: prof [email protected])

(Received 06 May 2005; accepted 22 August 2005)

Abstract. Water quality indice are necessary for resolving lengthy, multi-parameter, water analysis
reports into single digit scores. This, in turn, is essential for comparing the water quality of different
sources and in monitoring the changes in the water quality of a given source as a function of time and
other influencing factors.
In this paper we present the computer-automated tool QUALIDEX (water QUALIty inDEX), which
has been developed by us to generate and operate water quality indice. Several popular indice – such
as the Oregon Water Quality Index developed in the 1970s by Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality and later updated in 1995, the Aquatic Toxicity Index developed by Wepener and coworkers
for protection of aquatic life at the Olifants river, Kruger National Park, South Africa, the water quality
index developed by Dinius in 1987, the Overall Index of Pollution (of surface waters) developed at
the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), and the water quality index of
the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) – have also been added to QUALIDEX in modular form.
There is also a New water quality index sub-module which enables the user to generate his or her
own index and compare its performance with these well-known indice. The package is also capable
of analyzing the variations in the water quality of different sites at different times. The software has
been coded in Visual C++ and has been integrated with MS Access database.

Keywords: water quality indice, drinking water, software, monitoring, virtual instrument

1. Introduction

Of all the natural resources, water is unarguably the most essential and precious. The
crucial role of water as the trigger and sustainer of civilizations has been witnessed
throughout the human history. But, up till as late as 1960s, the overriding interest in
the water has been vis a vis its quantity. Except in manifestly undesirable situations,
the available water was automatically deemed utilizable water. Only during the
last three decades of the twentieth century the concern for water quality has been
exceedingly felt so that, by now, water quality has acquired as much importance as
water quantity.
But expressing water quality, especially to a lay person, is enormously more dif-
ficult than expressing water quantity. The later can be expressed in precise terms as
volume contained in a lotic water body, for example in m3 or Km3 ; or flow in a lentic
202 C. SARKAR AND S. A. ABBASI

one, for example cusec (m3 sec−1 ). But water quality is a multi-parameter attribute;
a large number of physical, chemical and biological factors together determine the
water quality. Further, unlike the water quantity, water quality is a function of the
nature of water utilization. To wit, assessing and communicating water quality is
fraught with the following complications:

1. The water quality varies according to the type of use. A certain water quality
may be good enough for the purpose of irrigation but it mayn’t be good enough
for drinking. Furthermore, the criterion of an ‘acceptable water quality’ varies
from region to region and from time to time depending upon the prevailing
conditions.
2. Different agencies have developed different standards for various uses of water
which differ in terminologies for classification scheme, selection of indicator
parameters, classification scheme etc.
3. A given water sample may contain hundreds of constituents – element in neutral
or ionic form, anions, organics, suspended solids pathogens, radioactivity, color,
odor etc. The quality of water is defined in terms of these physical, chemical,
biological and bacteriological parameters each of which are expressed in dif-
ferent units of measurements. The extent of importance level of each of these
parameters in influencing the overall water quality for a given type of water use
is unknown and needs to be determined.

1.1. THE CONCEPT OF WATER QUALITY INDEX

On account of the multi-dimensional nature of the various environmental sub-

systems, the concept of environmental indice has gained currency to characterize
the individual sub-systems (Otto, 1978). The philosophy of employing indice to
characterize the status of the environment is not a novel one; the concept has its
roots in subjects like economics and commerce (Fisher, 1922; Diewert, 1993). A
considerable bulk of literature on the index theory has evolved over time by the
work of various economists. The most extensively employed is the consumer price
index (CPI) which is a single value indicator of the status of the market at any given
instant, on the basis of prices of certain communities. Then there is also the share
price index which gives an indication of the overall status of a country’s economy.
Subjective environmental indice that are presently employed are thus, the offshoots
of the axiomatic indice devised by economists to quantify the spatial and temporal
changes in economy.
Water quality Index have gained currency only during the last three decades but
the concept in its rudimentary form was first introduced more than 150 years ago –
in 1848 – in Germany where the presence or absence of certain organisms in water
was used as indicator of fitness or otherwise of a water source.
Since then various European countries have developed and applied different sys-
tems to classify the quality of water within their regions. These water classification
 QUALIDEX 203

systems are usually of two types:

(i) Those concerned with the amount of pollution present, and

(ii) Those concerned with living communities of macroscopic or microscopic or-
ganisms.

Rather than assigning numerical values to represent the water quality, these
classification systems categorized water bodies into one of several pollution classes
or levels. By contrast, indice that use a numerical scale to represent gradation in
water quality levels are a recent phenomenon, beginning with Horton’s index in
1965.
Horton (1965) set for himself the following criteria when developing the first
ever modern WQI:

(1) The number of variables to be handled by the index should be limited to avoid
making the index unwieldy.
(2) The variables should be of significance in most areas.
(3) Only such variables, of which reliable data is available, or obtainable, should
be included.

Horton selected 10 most commonly measured water quality variables for his
index including dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, specific conductance, alkalinity, and
chloride. Specific conductance was intended to serve as an approximate measure
of total dissolved solids (TDS), and carbon chloroform extract (CCE) was included
to reflect the influence of organic matter. One of the variables, sewage treatment
(percentage of population served), was designed to reflect the effectiveness of abate-
ment activities on the premise that chemical and biological measures of quality are
of little significance until progress has been made in eliminating discharges of
raw sewage. The index weight ranged from 1 to 4. Notably Horton’s index didn’t
include any toxic chemicals. The index score is obtained with a linear sum aggre-
gation function. The function consists of weighted sum of sub-indice divided by
the sum of weights and multiplied by two coefficients M1 and M2 , which reflect
the temperature and obvious pollution, respectively:
n
wi Ii
WQI = i=1 M1 M2 (1)
i=1 wi

Horton’s index is easy to compute, even though the coefficients M1 and M2 require
some tailoring to fit the individual situations. The index structure, its weights, and
rating scale are highly subjective as they are based on the judgment of the author
and a few of his associates.
Horton’s pioneering effort has been followed up by those of several workers
who have striven to develop less and less subjective but more and more sensitive
and useful water quality indice.
204 C. SARKAR AND S. A. ABBASI

A water quality index basically acts as a mathematical tool employed to trans-

form the bulk of water quality data into a single digit, cumulatively derived,
numerical expression indicating the level of water quality. This, in turn, is es-
sential for comparing the water quality of different sources and in monitoring the
changes in the water quality of a given source as a function of time and other in-
fluencing factors. The concept also aims at eliminating the subjective assessment
of water quality and the individual biases of water resource managers. Numerous
variations of water quality indice have been addressed in literature over the past
four decades (Horton, 1965; Brown et al., 1970; Prati et al., 1971; Dinius, 1972,
1987; Walaski and Parker, 1974; Dunette, 1979; Bhargava, 1983, 1985; Smith,
1987, 1989; Schultz, 2001, Said et al., 2004, etc).

1.2. THE MAIN STEPS INVOLVED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A WQI

There are four main steps involved in the development of a water quality index
(Otto, 1978; Abbasi, 2002). However, depending upon the sophistication being
aimed at, additional steps may be taken.

1. Parameter selection – A given water sample may contain hundreds of con-

stituents; however one needs to select the optimum set of parameters which,
together, reflect the overall water quality with respect to a given end use. In
order to overcome the uncertainty and subjectivity involved in the process, enor-
mous care, attention, experience and consensus gathering skills are necessary.
Approaches such as Delphi, have commonly been employed in order to reduce
the subjectivity involved in the process.
2. Transformations of the parameters of different units and dimensions into a com-
mon scale – Different parameters occur in different ranges, are expressed in
different units and have different behavior in-terms of concentration-impact re-
lationships. Sub-indice are developed for the respective parameters in order to
transform them into a common scale. The nature of variations in the sub-index
curves indicates the impact of change in the value of the parameter upon the
water quality. The sub-index functions are generated on the basis of an in depth
understanding of the impact of a particular concentration level of a parameter
upon the health of human beings and other biota. The sub-index curves may be
linear, non-linear, segmented-linear, segmented-nonlinear etc.
3. Assignment of suitable weightages to the respective parameters – In most of the
water quality indice, the selected water quality parameters are assigned weights
depending upon its importance in impacting the water quality. Several methods
have been employed thus far for the assignment of weightages to the individ-
ual parameters. The earlier indice such as the one developed by Horton (1965)
depended upon the developer’s criteria for associating weightage to the respec-
tive component parameters on the basis of its closeness to a desired level of
 QUALIDEX 205

water quality standard. However, on account of the high level of subjectivity

associated with this method, it has been subsequently discarded. Opinion gath-
ering techniques like Delphi (Abbasi, 1995; Abbasi and Arya, 2000) has also
been employed to assign weightages to individual parameters (Brown et al.,
1970; Dinius, 1987; Smith, 1987). They minimize the subjectivity and thereby
enhance the credibility of the index. Some indice have been developed thus far
which don’t employ any weightage system. The ones developed by Prati et al.
(1971) and Sargaonker et al. (2003) are based on the pre-existing water quality
standards. The Aquatic Toxicity Index (Wepener et al., 1992) doesn’t employ
any weighing system since the developers felt that too little was known about the
importance of one determinant parameter compared to another under varying
local conditions. Said et al. (2004) have also developed a water quality index,
in which an attempt has been made to simplify the calculations through the
elimination of the sub-indice. Five water quality parameters namely DO, total
phosphates, fecal coliform, turbidity, and specific conductivity were identified
and weighted. A final form was selected which, according to the authors keeps
the index in a simple equation and a reasonable numerical range. A logarithmic
aggregation function was employed to obtain small index scores. A sensitivity
analysis was performed to test the performance and in the final index, the powers
of the variables in the WQI were adjusted to indicate the optimal reflection of
the impact of each variable upon the water quality. The index was designed to
range from 0 to 3. In case of very good water quality, the index had a value of
3, it ranged from 2–3 for acceptable quality while it was less than 2 in case of
marginal quality. The index gives a value less than 2 if one or two of the vari-
ables are at undesirable levels; it gives a value less than 1 if most of the variables
deviate substantially from the ideal levels. Apparently, the index is suited to
provide a reasonable assessment of water quality for general uses under natural
conditions.
4. Evaluation of the final index score through the aggregation of the respective
sub-indice– Different indice have employed different variants of aggregation
techniques depending upon the type of end use. Some of the commonly employed
aggregation functions are weighted sum (Horton, 1965; Brown et al., 1970;
Prati et al., 1971; Deininger and Landwehr, 1971; Dinius, 1972; McDuffie and
Haney, 1973; Stoner, 1978; Giljanovic, 1999; Sargaonker et al., 2003), weighted
geometric mean (Deininger and Landwehr, 1971; Walski and Parker, 1974;
Bhargava, 1985), and weighted product (Dinius, 1987). The additive aggregation
function modified by Solway (House and Ellis, 1980) was used in the Aquatic
Toxicity Index (Wepener et al., 1992) while the unweighted harmonic mean
square formula was employed in index developed by Dojlido et al. (1994) as
also in the Oregon Water Quality Index (Cude, 2001). However, one of the
drawbacks associated with most of these indice is that they involve aggregation
of scores of individual water quality parameters resulting in hiding of valuable
information related to the raw water quality (Smith, 1987, 1989, 1990). A low
206 C. SARKAR AND S. A. ABBASI

sub-index score for one variable may severely limit the water use, but it may
be eclipsed or hidden by high sub-index scores for other variables. In order
to avoid this tendency of eclipsing valuable information, Smith advocated the
use of minimum operator approach that uses the lowest sub-index value as the
final index score. But then this approach has its own shortcomings: it fails to
provide a composite picture of water quality. Swamee and Tyagi (2000) have
conceived a mathematical formulation for developing an aggregate index which
has been demonstrated to be free from the problems of ambiguity and eclipsing.
On account of the different behavior of the water quality parameters, they have
divided the sub-indice in to three categories – uniformly decreasing, wherein
the sub-indice monotonically decrease with the increase in the level of the water
quality variable, non-uniformly decreasing, in which the sub-indice change at a
rate different from the rate of change in the levels of the water quality variables,
and unimodal, where the sub-indice show maxima at an optimum value of the
water quality variable, but decrease as the water quality variable departs from
optimum. They have proposed a full range of sub-index function equations for a
number of parameters which has been calibrated with the help of the sub-index
curves of NSF-WQI.

In some of the water quality indice, the technique of devising sub-indice and
their aggregation have been replaced by employing suitable statistical techniques to
determine the parameters of importance and the extent of their importance. These
approaches reduce the subjective assumptions associated with the traditional indice.
The statistical approaches mainly focus on deriving the correlations expressing the
associations among water quality parameters to determine the importance of each
as a determinant of water quality. Factor analysis (Joung, et al., 1978), principal
component analysis (Shin and Lam, 2001; Parinet et al., 2004), Kendall’s non-
parametric classification (Harkin, 1974), uniformity indexing method (Ball and
Church, 1980), non-linear regression (Cude, 2001) are some of the commonly
employed statistical tools in the formulation of water quality index.
Another approach that has evolved in the 1990s involves the classification of wa-
ter quality based on the fuzzy theory. Kung et al. (1992) employed fuzzy clustering
analysis for the classification of water quality while the fuzzy synthetic evaluation
technique has been used by Lu et al. (1999) and Bin Chang (2003) to analyze and
compare the levels of reservoir eutrophication in Taiwan.

1.3. SOME FREQUENTLY USED INDICE

Some of the water quality indice that have been frequently employed in public
domain for the purpose of water quality assessment are the NSF Water Quality
Index (NSFWQI), British Columbia Water Quality Index (BCWQI), Canadian Wa-
ter Quality Index (CWQI), Oregon Water Quality index (OWQI), and the Florida
Stream Water Quality Index (FWQI) (Said et al., 2004).
 QUALIDEX 207

Of these the NSFWQI has been the forerunner of many indice and its method-
ology continues to be adapted to this day. To generate important scores for the
NSFWQI, a survey was conducted among 142 water quality scientists and 35 pa-
rameters were considered for possible inclusion. In the final form, NSFWQI relied
on nine parameters (Brown et al., 1970; Mitchell and Stapp, 1996).
The British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks in Canada
have developed the British Columbia Water Quality Index (BCWQI). The index
has been developed at great effort, over a long time span (Zandbergen and Hall,
1998). However, BCWQI has been found to be extremely sensitive to sampling
design and has been applied to variety of uses – drinking, recreation, irrigation,
livestock watering, wild life and aquatic life. In 1997, the Water Quality Guide-
lines Task Group of the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment (CCME)
decided to study the different existing approaches to index formulation and their
efforts led to the development of a standardized system – an unified water quality
index that has been employed throughout Canada for the purpose of water quality
assessment (CCME, 2001). The Canadian Water Quality Index (CWQI) was based
on the concept of British Columbia Water Quality Index (BCWQI). Instead of the
conventional Delphi approach, the CWQI employed three factors, each of which
has been scaled between 0 and 100 namely scope, frequency and amplitude. They
are the measures of variance from selected objectives of water quality which are
combined together to create a vector in an imaginary ‘objective exceedance’ space.
‘Objectives’ may refer to Canada-wide water quality guidelines or site specific wa-
ter quality objectives. The length of the vector is then scaled to range between 0
and 100, and subtracted from 100 to produce an index which is 0 or close to 0 for
very poor water quality, and close to 100 for excellent water quality (CCME, 2001;
Khan et al., 2003). The index was subsequently revised to overcome the problems
that arose due to the formulations for estimating the frequency and amplitude. The
revised index have been employed by Khan et al. (2003) to analyze the water qual-
ity trends in three selected watersheds of Atlantic region: Mersey River, the Point
Wolfe River, and the Dunk River sites.
The Oregon Water Quality Index, developed by the Oregon Department of En-
vironmental Quality (ODEQ) in the late 1970s and updated several times since then
is another frequently used WQI in public domain (Cude, 2001).
The Florida Stream Water Quality Index (FWQI), developed in 1995 under the
Strategic Assessment of Florida’s Environment program is an arithmetic average of
twelve water quality parameters namely, water clarity (turbidity and total suspended
solids), dissolved oxygen, oxygen demanding substances (biochemical oxygen de-
mand, chemical oxygen demand, total organic carbon), nutrients (phosphorus and
nitrogen), bacteria (total and fecal coliform), and biological diversity (natural or
artificial substrate micro-vertebrate diversity and Beck’s biotic index). Index values
ranging from 0 to less than 45 represents good quality, 45 to less than 60 represents
fair quality, and 60 to 90 represents poor quality (SAFE, 1995).
208 C. SARKAR AND S. A. ABBASI

2. The Proposed Water Quality Software

In this paper we have presented the computer-automated tool – QUALIDEX (water

QUALIty inDEX), which has been developed by us to generate and operate water
quality indice. This PC-based water quality software has been developed within the
object oriented architecture in Visual C++. The primary objective is to fulfill the
urgent need of a diagnostic tool for the overall assessment of the status of water
quality of individual water sources such as wells, ponds and lakes in any region,
with respect to the different water uses at regular intervals.

3. Basic Architecture of QUALIDEX

QUALIDEX comprises of four modules, namely – the database module, the index
generation module, the water quality comparison module and the report generation
module. The basic architecture of QUALIDEX is depicted in Figure 1.

3.1. D ATABASE MODULE

The water analysis data covering the parameters needed for each of the five indice
available in the QUALIDEX are stored in the database module. The module com-
prises of five MS Access files, one for each of the component indice. A typical
dataset as keyed into this module is depicted in Figure 2. For each of the index,
the corresponding parameter values of a specific site at a particular date and time
are stored in the respective MS Access spreadsheet. The MS Access files have
been connected to the software through the Open Database Connectivity (ODBC)
data source administrator of windows. A user friendly interface has been developed
within the software itself to enable the users to enter, save and edit raw water quality
data as shown in Figure 4.

3.2. WATER QUALITY INDEX GENERATION MODULE

The software enables the user to generate the following well-known water quality
indice for any water source of the water quality use:

• The Oregon Water Quality Index (OWQI)

• Aquatic Toxicity Index (ATI)
• Dinius Water Quality Index (DWQI)
• Overall Index of Pollution (OIP) of National Environmental Engineering Re-
search Institute (NEERI), India
• Water quality index of Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), India

In addition the software contains the New Water Quality Index Sub-module with
which new index may be generated on the basis of the parameters chosen by the
 QUALIDEX

Figure 1. Conceptual framework of QUALIDEX.

209
 210
C. SARKAR AND S. A. ABBASI

Figure 2. Typical data set keyed into the MS Access database module of the Overall Index of Pollution (OIP).
 QUALIDEX 211

user, and the concerned weightage, applicability range, sub-index, and aggregation
function defined by the user.

3.2.1. The Indice Included in QUALIDEX

3.2.1.1. Oregon Water Quality Index (OWQI). The OWQI was developed in the
1970s by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality for the purpose of
summarizing and evaluating water quality trends and status (Dunette, 1979). It
was employed to express the water quality status and trends for legislatively man-
dated Water Quality Status Assessment Reports. It was modeled after the National
Sanitation Foundation’s WQI and it employed the Delphi Technique for the selec-
tion of water quality variables. The water quality variables were classified according
to the impairment categories i.e. oxygen depletion, eutrophication or potential for
excess biological growth, dissolved substances and health hazards. However, the
original OWQI was discontinued in 1983 on account of the enormous resources
required for calculating and reporting the results. With the advancements in the com-
puter technology, enhanced tools of data display and visualization and a better un-
derstanding of water quality, the OWQI was updated in 1995 by refining the original
sub-indice, adding temperature and total phosphorus sub-indice, and improving the
aggregation calculation (Cude, 2001). The resulting index indicates the water qual-
ity of Oregon’s streams with respect to general recreational use including fishing
and swimming. The overall water quality is expressed as a single digit by integrat-
ing measurements of eight different water quality variables namely temperature,
dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand, pH, ammonia+nitrate nitrogen,
total phosphorus, total solids and fecal coliform. The sub-index transformation for-
mulae were derived using non-linear regression, from the transform table developed
from the originally hand drawn OWQI sub-index transformation curves (Dunette,
1980). It was felt that the minimum operator aggregator proved to be too sensitive
to the most impacted variable and didn’t integrate the other variables (Cude, 2002).
Consequently, the unweighted harmonic square mean formulae was employed for
the purpose of aggregation of the sub-index scores as an improvement over the
weighted arithmetic mean formula used in the original version:

n
WQI = n 1 (2)
i=1 Si2

where WQI is the water quality index result, n is the number of sub-indice and Si
is the sub-index i. The OWQI helps to evaluate the effectiveness of water quality
management activities. It may also be employed to develop environmental indi-
cators, such as percentage of river monitoring sites with significantly improving
water quality, or the percentage of sites with excellent water quality.

3.2.1.2. Aquatic Toxicity Index (ATI). It was developed by Wepener et al. (1992)
to assess the health of aquatic ecosystems. Since extensive toxicity database are
212 C. SARKAR AND S. A. ABBASI

available for fishes, the toxic effects of different water quality to fishes have been
employed as health indicators of the aquatic ecosystem. The physical water quality
parameters employed were pH, dissolved oxygen and turbidity while the chemi-
cal determinant included ammonium, total dissolved salts, fluoride, potassium and
orthophosphates and the potentially hazardous metals chosen were total zinc, man-
ganese, chromium, copper, lead and nickel concentrations. An ATI scale, similar
to the WQI scale proposed by Smith (1990) for salmonid spawning was used. The
Solway modified unweighted additive aggregation function (House and Ellis, 1980)
was initially employed to aggregate the values obtained from the rating curves
 2
1 1 n
I = · qi (3)
100 n i=1

where I is the final index score, qi is the quality of the ith parameter (a value between
0–100) and n is the number of determinants in the indexing system. Wepener
et al. didn’t employ the weighted sum system, as too little information is available
about the importance of one determinant compared to another under different local
conditions and the inherent chemistry of the system as a whole. Moreover, it is
impossible to compare the factors which have a direct and interactive effect upon
one another. In order to avoid concealing the identity of the determinant which limits
the water’s suitability for use, the minimum operator function was also employed. A
computer software package (WATER), written in Pascal with “Turbo Pascal Version
6” was developed to compute both the additive and minimum operator final index
values. Wepener et al. (1999) assessed the spatial and temporal trends of water
quality of Olifants river and Selati river in Kruger national park during the course
of metal mining project over a two year period (February 1990–April 1992) based
on their index.

3.2.1.3. Dinius Water Quality Index (DWQI). It is a multiplicative water quality

index developed by Dinius (1987) for six categories of water uses: public water
supply, recreation, fish, shellfish, agriculture and industry. He employed the liberal
use of Delphi for decision making. The index included 12 parameters: dissolved
oxygen, 5-day BOD, coliform count, E-coli count, pH, alkalinity, hardness, chlo-
ride, specific conductivity, temperature, color and nitrate. The weightage of each
parameter was assigned based on the evaluation of importance by the Delphi panel
members. The individual sub-index functions were combined with the help of a
multiplicative aggregation function as follows

n
IWQ = Iiwi (4)
i=1

where IWQ is the Dinius water quality index whose value ranges from 0–100, Ii
is the sub-index function of the pollutant parameter, Wi is the unit weight of the
 QUALIDEX 213

pollutant parameter whose value ranges from, 0–1 and n is the number of pollutant
parameters.

3.2.1.4. Overall Index of Pollution (OIP). It was developed by Sargaonker

et al. (2003) at National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI),
Nagpur, India in order to assess the status of surface waters, specifically under Indian
conditions. A general classification scheme has been formulated based on a concept
similar to the one proposed by Prati et al. (1971) and giving due consideration to
the classification scheme developed by CPCB. The scheme reflects the status of
water quality in terms of pollution effects of parameters under consideration. Five
classes namely C1 : Excellent/pristine, C2 : Acceptable/requires disinfection, C3 :
Slightly Polluted/requires filtration and disinfection, C4 : Polluted/requires special
treatment and disinfection, C5 : Heavily Polluted/cant be used have been consid-
ered. The concentration levels of the parameters were classified into these classes
or categories on the basis of the well-established standards/criteria employed by
CPCB, ISI 10500 or other agencies. In order to bring the different water quality
parameters into a commensurate unit, an integer value 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 is assigned to
each of the five classes C1 , C2 , C3 , C4 , C5 respectively in geometric progression.

Figure 3. Main menu of graphic user interface of QUALIDEX.

214 C. SARKAR AND S. A. ABBASI

These numbers are termed as class index and they indicate the level of pollution
in numeric terms. The parameter concentration is then assigned to the respective
mathematical expression to obtain a numerical value called an index (Pi ) which
indicates the level of pollution for that parameter. The Overall Index of Pollution
(OIP) is then evaluated as a mean of all the individual pollution indice (Pi ) as
follows

Pi
OIP = i (5)
n

where Pi is the pollution index for the ith parameter, i = 1, 2, . . . n and n =

number of parameters. The index value ranges between 1–16. The Overall Index
of Pollution (OIP) was found to be very useful for the assessment of surface water
status as well as the formulation of pollution control strategies in terms of treatment
required at different levels. The index was employed to ascertain the suitability of
water at a few sampling stations along the Yamuna river.

3.2.1.5. Water quality index of Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), India.
It was developed by Ved Prakash et al. (1990) and is primarily based on the WQI

Figure 4. User-friendly interface for entering, editing and saving raw water quality data into the
database module.
 QUALIDEX 215

of National Sanitation Foundation (Abbasi, 2002). However, slight modifications

were made in terms of assignment of weightages so as to conform to the water
quality criteria for different categories of water uses set by the Central Pollution
Control Board, India. Four important water quality parameters- dissolved oxygen
(DO), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), pH and fecal coliform were selected
through Delphi. A weighted sum aggregation function was used to evaluate the
overall water quality index.

P
WQI = wi Ii (6)
i=1

where Ii = subindex for the ith water quality parameter; wi = weight associated
with the ith water quality parameter; P = number of water quality parameters
The developed index was employed to evaluate the water quality profile of river
Ganga in its entire stretch and to identify areas requiring urgent pollution control
measures.
The indice described above have been coded within this module. Table I lists the
complete details of each of these indice. To evaluate any particular water quality

Figure 5. Common interface to analyze the individual parameters of the Overall Index of Pollution
(OIP).
 216
TABLE I
Sub-index functions and the weightages of the component indice of QUALIDEX

Oregon Water Quality Index (OWQI)

Parameter Weightage Range applicable(x) Sub-index function(SIi ) Aggregation function Water quality classification

Temperature (◦ C) – T ≤ 11 SIT = 100

11 < T < 29 SIT = 76.54 + 4.172T −
0.1623T2 − 2.0557E − 3T3
T > 29 SIT = 10
DOC (mg/l) DOS – DOC < 3.3 SIDO = 10
(% saturation) 3.3 < DOC < 10.5 SIDO = −80.29 + 31.88DOC −
1.401DO2C
DOC ≥ 10.5 SIDO = 100
100% < DOS ≤ 275% SIDO = 100 exp((DOS − 100)∗ −
1.197E − 2)
DOS > 275% SIDO = 10
BOD, 5day (mg/l) – BOD ≤ 8 SIBOD = 100 exp(BOD∗ − 0.1993)
C. SARKAR AND S. A. ABBASI

BOD > 8 SIBOD = 10

pH – pH < 4 SIpH = 10
10–59 – Very poor
4 ≤ pH < 7 SIpH = 2.628 exp(pH∗ 0.5200) 
n
60–79 – Poor
7 ≤ pH ≤ 8 SIpH = 100 WQI = n 1
i=1 S 2 80–84 – Fair
8 < pH ≤ 11 SIpH = 100 exp((pH − 8)∗ − 0.5188) i
85–89– Good
pH > 11 SIpH = 10 90–100 – Excellent
(Continued on next page)
 TABLE I
(Continued)

Oregon Water Quality Index (OWQI)

Parameter Weightage Range applicable (x) Sub-index Function (SIi ) Aggregation function Water quality classification

Total solids (mg/l) – TS < 40 SITS = 100

40 < TS ≤ 220 SITS = 142.6 exp(TS − 8.862E − 3)
TS > 220 SITS = 10
Ammonia+NO3 -N – N≤3 SIN = 100 exp(N∗ − 0.4605)
N>3 SIN = 10
Total Phosphorus – P ≤ 0.25 SIP = 100–299.5P − 0.1384P2
P > 0.25 SIP = 10
FC ≤ 50 SIFC = 98
Fecal Coliform – 50 < FC ≤ 1600 SIFC = 98 exp((FC − 50)∗
(nos./100 ml) − 9.9178E − 4)
QUALIDEX

FC > 1600 SIFC = 10

Aquatic Toxicity index (ATI)

Parameter Weightage Range applicable (x) Sub-index function (y) Aggregation function Water quality classification

DO (mg/l) – 0 ≤ DO ≤ 5 y = 10x
5 < DO ≤ 6 y = 20x − 50
6 < DO ≤ 9 y = 10x + 10
DO > 9 y = 100
pH – – y = 98 exp[−(x − 8.16)2 · (0.4)]
+17 exp[−(x − 5.2)2 · (0.5)]
+15 exp[−(x − 11)2 · (0.72)]+2

(Continued on next page)

217
 218
TABLE I
(Continued)

Aquatic Toxicity index (ATI)

Parameter Weightage Range applicable (x) Sub-index function (y) Aggregation function Water quality classification

Manganese – – y = 0.115 exp−0.05 · exp0.0013x +5

Nickel – – y = −28 ln(x − 10) + 211
Fluoride – – y = −71 ln(0.001(x + 2.5)) − 235
Chromium – – y = −40 ln(0.1(x + 150)) + 210 60–100 – Suitable for all
 2
n
 fish life
1 1
Lead – – y = −27 ln(0.1(x − 30)) I = . qi 51–59 – Suitable only
100 n i=1 for hardy fish species
Ammonium – NH+
4 ≥ 0.02 y = 100 0–50 – Totally unsuitable
for normal fish life
0.02 < NH+4 ≤ 0.062 y = −500x + 110
0.062 < NH+4 ≤ 0.05 y = 40/(x + 0.65)2
NH+4 > 0.5 y = −5.8x + 32.5
C. SARKAR AND S. A. ABBASI

Copper – – y = −26 ln(x − 18) + 180

Zinc – – y = −22 ln(0.001(x − 20)) + 16
Orthophosphates – – y = 100 exp−2.4x
Potassium – – y = 150 exp−0.02x +8
Turbidity – – y = −220 ln(0.001 ln(x) + 30) − 689
Total dissolved – – y = 117 exp−0.00068x −7
salts
(Continued on next page)
 TABLE I
(Continued)

Dinius water quality index

Parameter Weightage Range applicable (x) Sub-index function (y) Aggregation function Water quality classification

DO (% saturation) 0.019 – 0.82DO + 10.56 –

BOD, 5 day (mg/l) 0.097 – 108 (BOD)−0.3494
Coli (MPN Coli/100 ml) 0.090 – 136 (Coli)−0.1311
E. Coli (Coli/100 ml) 0.116 – 106 (E-Coli)−0.1286
Alkalinity (ppm CaCO3 ) 0.063 – 110 (Alk)−0.1342
Hardness (ppm CaCO3 ) 0.065 – 552 (Ha)−0.4488 n

Chloride (mg/l) 0.074 – 391 (Cl)−0.3480 IWQ = Ii wi
QUALIDEX

Sp. Conductance 0.079 – 306 (Sp.C)−0.3315 i=1

(micro-mhos/cm)
pH 0.077 <6.9 100.6803+0.1856( p H )
6.9–7.1 1
>7.1 103.57−0.2216 (pH)
Nitrate (mg/l) 0.090 – 125(N)−0.2718
Temperature (◦ C) 0.077 – 102.004−−0.0−−382(T a−T s)
Color (Color units – Pt std) 0.063 – 127(C)−0.2394
(Continued on next page)
219
 TABLE I 220
(Continued)

Overall Index of Pollution (OIP)

Parameter Weightage Range applicable (y) Sub-index Function (Pi ) Aggregation function Water quality classification

Turbidity – ≤5 Pi =1
5–10 Pi = (y/5)
10–500 Pi = (y + 43.9)/34.5
pH – 7 Pi =1
7 Pi =1
>7 Pi = exp((y − 7)/1.082
<7 Pi = exp((7 − y)/1.082
Color – 10–150 Pi = (y + 130)/140
150–1200 Pi = y/75
% DO – <50 Pi = exp(−(y − 98.33)/36.067)
50–100 Pi = (707.58 − y)/14.667
≥100 Pi = (y − 79.543)/19.054
<2 Pi =1
C. SARKAR AND S. A. ABBASI

BOD – 2–30 Pi = y/1.5

TDS – ≤500 Pi =1
500–1500 Pi = exp((y − 500)/721.5)
1500–3000 Pi = (y − 1000)/125
3000–6000 Pi = y/375 0–1 – Excellent

i Pi 1–2 – Acceptable
Hardness – ≤75 Pi = 1 OIP = 2–4 – Slightly polluted
n
75–500 Pi = exp(y + 42.5)/205.58 4–8 – Polluted
>500 Pi = (y + 500)/125 8–16 – Heavily polluted
(Continued on next page)
 TABLE I
(Continued)

Overall Index of Pollution (OIP)

Parameter Weightage Range applicable (y) Sub-index Function (Pi ) Aggregation function Water quality classification

Cl – ≤150 Pi =1
150–250 Pi = exp((y/50) − 3)/1.4427)
>250 Pi = exp((y/50) + 10.167)/10.82
NO3 – ≤20 Pi =1
20–50 Pi = exp((145 − y)/76.28)
50–200 Pi = y/65
SO4 – ≤150 Pi =1
150–2000 Pi = ((y/50 + 0.375)/2.5121
QUALIDEX

50–5000 Pi = (y/50)∗∗ .0301

5000–15000 Pi = ((y/50) − 50)/16.071
>15000 Pi = (y/15000) + 16
As – ≤0.005 Pi =1
0.005–0.01 Pi = y/0.005
0.01–0.1 Pi = (y + 0.015)/0.0146
0.1–1.3 Pi = (y + 1.1)/0.15
F – 0–1.2 Pi =1
1.2–10 Pi = ((y/1.2) − 0.3819)/0.5083
(Continued on next page)
221
 222

TABLE I
(Continued)

Ved Prakash Index (CPCB WQI)

Parameter Weightage Range applicable (x) Sub-index Function (Ii ) Aggregation function Water quality classification

DO (% saturation) 0.31 0–40% IDO = 0.18 + 0.66x

40–100% IDO = −13.5 + 1.17x
100–140% IDO = 163.34 − .62x
BOD (mg/l) 0.19 0–10 IBOD = 96.67 − 7.0x P
 63–100 – Good to excellent
10–30 IBOD = 38.9 − 1.23x WQI = wi Ii 50–63 – Medium to good
i=1
pH 0.22 2–5 IPH = 16.1 + 7.35x 38–50 – Bad
5–7.3 IPH = −47.61 + 20.09x <38 – Bad to very bad
C. SARKAR AND S. A. ABBASI

7.3–10 IPH = 316.96 − 29.85x

10–12 IPH = 96.17 − 8.0x
Fecal Coliform 0.28 103 –105 Icoli = 42.33 − 7.75 log10 x
>105 Icoli = 2
 QUALIDEX 223

index, the user needs to first specify the site as well as the date and time at which he
wants to analyze the water quality and subsequently extract the respective values of
the component water quality parameters for the site. Individual dialog boxes have
been created for the detailed assessment of the status of each of the water quality
parameters included in an index. This can be accessed through a common interac-
tive interface from where the user has to navigate through the parameter-specific
dialog boxes in a sequential manner. For each water quality parameter included
in an index, the user has to first extract the raw parameter value of the site from
the database. The software subsequently evaluates the sub-index value of the pa-
rameter. Option has been developed to view the sub-index curve for the parameter
which indicates the variation of the pollution levels with the parameter value. In
case of the Overall Index of Pollution (OIP), there is the option for the classifica-
tion of the water quality with respect to each of the individual parameters. Finally,
the individual sub-index values are aggregated to produce the overall water quality
index score. The comparisons of the state of individual water quality parameters
are automated graphically and the overall status of the water quality at a partic-
ular site and time is indicated by the index score in the water quality meter and
the water quality is classified in accordance with the classification scheme of the
index.

Figure 6. Sample dialog-box for the evaluation of sub-index function of a component parameter of
the Overall Index of Pollution (OIP).
224 C. SARKAR AND S. A. ABBASI

3.2.1.6. The New Water Quality Index (NWQI) Sub-module. This sub-module
enables the users to generate their own water quality index and compare the results
with the other well known indice presently included in QUALIDEX. It provides
flexibility to the users to choose the component water quality parameters which they
feel, have a significant influence upon a specific water quality, associate appropriate
sub-index functions with them and thereby assess the overall status of the water
quality on the basis of their perception of the water pollution problem in their local
areas. The minimum operator aggregation function has been employed so as to
identify the parameter with the lowest sub-index score that plays most significant
role in depleting the water quality. Consequently, after identifying the parameter
that contributes maximum to the pollution, appropriate counter measures may be
taken to manage the pollution. A sample screen shot of this module has been shown
in Figure 9, while a typical work flow for operating the New Water Quality Index
has been depicted in Figure 10.

3.3. WATER QUALITY COMPARISON MODULE

Monitoring the variations in the quality of water of a region helps in gaining invalu-
able insights into the underlying causative factors. A comprehensive assessment

Figure 7. Sample dialog-box for the overall water quality assessment for the Overall Index of Pollution
(OIP).
 QUALIDEX 225

of the spatio-temporal variations of water quality is of considerable importance

to the policy makers in developing appropriate policies and mitigation measures.
QUALIDEX has a water quality comparison module that has been developed pri-
marily with an aim to

1. assess the spatial variations in water quality (i.e. the variations at different sites)
2. assess the temporal variations in the water quality of a site (i.e. the variations at
different time intervals)

There is provision for the comparison of water quality with respect to each of the
five water quality indice included in the software. Through this module, the user has
the option to compare the water quality of up to seven samples. In order to assess the
spatial variations in the water quality of the samples collected from different sites,
the user has to choose the respective sites, date and time of collection of the samples
from the drop down menu. The software subsequently extracts the parameter values
of the sites from the database module and evaluates the overall index value for the
selected sites. Incase, the user wants to assess the temporal variations in the water
quality of a given site, he needs to select the particular site as well as the dates and
times for which he wants the comparisons. The software will extract the parameter

Figure 8. Sample dialog-box for the water quality comparison using Overall Index of Pollution (OIP).
226 C. SARKAR AND S. A. ABBASI

values and evaluates the overall index values for the site at different time intervals.
The final results are automated in the form of user friendly bar graphs and the water
quality index scores are indicated in the water quality meter.

3.4. R EPORT GENERATION

The results of the calculations performed in the water quality index generation
module and the water quality comparison module may be viewed in the form of
compact summary tables through this module. For each run, the corresponding
summary tables are stored in html files within the software which can be accessed
from the report generation menu on the GUI of QUALIDEX. General format of the
report generated for the Water Quality Comparison Module has been depicted in
Table II. The comparison matrix consists of a number of cells. Each of the cells of the
matrix has been divided into two sectors which contain the water quality parameter
value of the site and the corresponding evaluated sub-index function value. At the
bottom of the matrix, the overall index score is evaluated by aggregating all the
sub-index function values of component parameters for a particular site. The water
quality classification is also depicted depending on the aggregate index value.

Figure 9. Sample dialog box which enables the user to select the sub-index function for a parameter
in the New water Quality Index.
 QUALIDEX 227

TABLE II
General format of the report generated for the water quality comparison module for the overall index
of pollution (OIP)

Sample screen shots of QUALIDEX have been shown in Figures 3–8 for the
Overall Index of Pollution (OIP). Figure 3 shows the main menu forming the
graphic user interface of QUALIDEX from where the corresponding modules of
QUALIDEX may be accessed. Figure 4 shows the interface developed for entering
228 C. SARKAR AND S. A. ABBASI

Figure 10. Sequence of steps for the generation of the new water quality index sub-module.
 QUALIDEX 229

raw water quality data, editing data, as well as saving them into the database module.
Figure 5 represents the standard interface developed for analyzing the component
water quality parameters of an index (Overall Index of Pollution in this case). Fig-
ure 6 represents a sample dialog box of the Overall Index of Pollution developed
for analyzing an individual parameter by generating the sub-index function curve
and evaluating the sub-index function of the parameter. Figure 7 depicts the stan-
dard format of overall water quality assessment performed in the Water Quality
Index Generation Module. This includes evaluation of the WQI value, a graphical
comparison of the water quality status of the components parameters of the module
and classification of the water quality. The figure also shows the virtual instrument
‘water quality meter’ with which changes in the water quality occurring with, say,
inflow of a pollutant or sea water can be visually seen as well as recorded.
The sub-index values and the corresponding index scores have been compared
for the Overall Index of Pollution (OIP) with the help of water quality of seven dif-
ferent sites. The corresponding output generated by the Water Quality Comparison
module has been depicted in Figure 8. The figure also displays the readings on the
‘water quality meter’.

4. Summary and Conclusion

A computer automated tool – QUALIDEX has been developed to provide a user

friendly water quality assessment system for the use of everybody concerned with
water quality monitoring, assessment, and management. QUALIDEX may be en-
ables the following:

• Assessment of the overall status of water quality of an area with respect to

different water uses through well known water quality indice.
• Real time generation of the water quality index by just entering the values of the
component parameters in the respective database files.
• Assessment of the water quality with respect to component parameters of an
index.
• Comparative assessment of the water quality index generated for different dates
and at different times.
• Comparative assessment of the water quality index generated for different sites
within the same city.
• Ease of communication of the results to the policy makers and general public as
the results can be displayed in the form of animated graphics and reports.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, New
Delhi, for financial support vide Grant titled, R&D . . . Reuse.
230 C. SARKAR AND S. A. ABBASI

References

Abbasi, S. A. and Arya, D. S.: 2000, Environmental Impact Assessment, Discovery Publishing House,
New Delhi.
Abbasi, S. A.: 2002, Water Quality Indices, State of the art report, Scientific Contribution No.-
INCOH/SAR-25/2002, Published by – INCOH, National Institute of Hydrology, Roorkee, 73
pages.
Ball, R. O. and Church, R. L.: 1980, ‘Water quality indexing and scoring’, J. Envir. Engrg. Div., ASCE
106(4), 757–771.
Bhargava, D. S.: 1983, ‘Use of a water quality index for river classification and zoning of Ganga
River’, Environmental Pollution (Series B) 6, 51–67.
Bhargava, D. S.: 1985, ‘Expression for drinking water supply standards’, Journal of Environmental
Engineering, ASCE 113(3), 304–316.
Brown, R. M., McClelland, N. I., Deininger, R. A. and Tozer, R. G.: 1970, ‘A water quality index –
Do we dare?’ Water Sewage Works 117, 339–343.
CCME: 2001, Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life: CCME Wa-
ter Quality Index 1.0, Technical Report. In: Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, 1999,
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg.
Chang, N.-B., Chen, H. W. and Ning, S. K.: 2003, ‘Identification of river water quality using the
Fuzzy Synthetic Evaluation approach’, Journal of Environmental Management 63, 293–305.
Cude, C. G.: 2001, ‘Oregon water quality index: A tool for evaluating water quality management
effectiveness’, Journal of American Water Resources Association 37(1), 125–137.
Cude, C. G.: 2002, ‘Reply to the discussion by Smith, D. G. et al. on – Oregon water quality index: A
tool for evaluating water quality management effectiveness’, Journal of American Water Resources
Association 38(1), 315–318.
Deininger, R. A. and Landwehr, J. M.: 1971, A Water Quality Index for Public Water Supplies,
Unpublished report, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Diewert, W. E.: 1993, ‘Indices’, in: W. E. Diewert and A. O. Nakamura (eds), Essays in Index Number
Theory, Vol. 1, Amsterdam: North Holland Press, pp. 71–104.
Dinius, S. H.: 1972, ‘Social accounting system for evaluating water’, Water Resources Research 8(5),
1159–1177.
Dinius, S. H.: 1987, ‘Design of an index of water quality’, Water Resources Bulletin 23(5), 833–
843.
Dojlido, J., Raniszewski, J. and Woyciechowska, J.: 1994 ‘Water quality index – Application for rivers
in Vistula river basin in Poland’, Water Science and Technology 30(10), 57–64.
Dunnette, D. A.: 1979, ‘A geographically variable water quality index used in Oregon’, Journal of
Water Pollution Control Federation 51(1), 53–61.
Dunnette, D. A.: 1980, Oregon Water Quality Index Staff Manual. Oregon Department of Environ-
mental Quality, Portland, Oregon.
Fisher, I.: 1922, The Making of Index Numbers. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Giljanovic, N. S.: 1999, ‘Water quality evaluation by index in Dalmantia’, Water Research 33(16),
3423–3440.
Harkins, R. D.: 1974, ‘An objective water quality index’, Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation
46, 588–591.
Horton, R. K.: 1965, ‘An index number system for rating water quality’, Journal of Water Pollution
Control Federation 37(3), 300–306.
House, M. A. and Ellis, J. B.: 1980, ‘Water quality indices: An additional management tool?’ Pro-
gressive Water Technology 13, 336–344.
Lu, R. S., Lo, S. L. and Hu, J. Y.: 1999, ‘Analysis of reservoir water quality using fuzzy synthetic
evaluation’, Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment 13(5), 327–336.
 QUALIDEX 231

Joung, H. M.: 1978, A Water Quality Index Based on Multivariate Factor Analysis, Experimental
Staticen Journal, Series No. 378, University of Nevada, Reno, NV.
Khan, K., Husain, T. and Lumb, A.: 2003, ‘Water quality evaluation and trend analysis in selected
watersheds of the Atlantic region of Canada’, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 88,
221–242.
Kung, H., Ying, L. and Liu, Y. C.: 1992, ‘A complementary tool to water quality index: Fuzzy
clustering analysis’, Water Resources Bull 28(3), 525–533.
McDuffie, B. and Haney, J. T.: 1973, A Proposed River Pollution Index, American Chemical Society,
Div. of Water, Air and Waste Chemistry, New York.
Mitchell, M. K. and Stapp, W. B.: 1996, Field Manual for Water Quality Monitoring: An Environmental
Education Program for Schools, Thomson-Shore, Inc., 176pp.
Otto, W. R.: 1978, Environmental Indices: Theory and Practice. Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Science
Publishers Inc.
Parinet, B., Lhote, A. and Legube, B.: 2004, ‘Principal component analysis: An appropriate tool for
water quality evaluation and management – application to a tropical lake system’, Ecological
Modeling 178, 295–311.
Prati, L., Pavanello, R. and Pesarin, F.: 1971, ‘Assessment of surface water quality by a single index
of pollution’, Water Research 5, 741–751.
SAFE: 1995, Strategic Assessment of Florida’s Environment, Florida Stream Water Quality Index,
Statewide Summary, available at: http://www.pepps.fsu.edu/safe/environ/swql.html.
Said, A., Stevens, D. K. and Sehlke, G.: 2004, ‘An innovative index for evaluating water quality in
streams’, Environmental Management 34(3), 406–414.
Sargoankar, A. and Deshpande, V.: 2003, ‘Development of an overall index of pollution for surface
water based on a general classification scheme in Indian context’, Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment 89, 43–67.
Shin, P. K. S. and Lam, W. K. C.: 2001, ‘Development of a marine sediment pollution index’,
Environmental Pollution 113, 281–291.
Smith, D. G.: 1987, Water Quality Indexes for Use in New Zealand’s Rivers and Streams, Water
Quality Centre Publication No. 12, Water Quality Centre, Ministry of Works and Development,
Hamilton, New Zealand.
Smith, D. G.: 1989, ‘A new form of water quality index for rivers and streams’, Wat. Sci. Tech 21(2),
123–127.
Smith, D. G.: 1990, ‘A better water quality indexing system for rivers and streams’, Water Research
24(10), 1237–1244.
Stoner, J. D.: 1978, Water Quality Indices of Specific Water Use, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Y.
A. Circular 140–770.
Swamee, P. K. and Tyagi, A.: 2000, ‘Describing water quality with aggregate index’, Journal of the
Environmental Engineering Division ASCE 126(5), 451–455.
Walski, T. M. and Parker, F. L.: 1974, ‘Consumer’s water quality index’, Journal of the Environmental
Engineering Division, ASCE 593–611.
Wepener, V., Euler, N., van Vuren, J. H. J., Du Preez, H. H. and Kohler, A.: 1992, ‘The development of
an aquatic toxicity index as a tool in the operational management of water quality in the Olifants
River (Kruger National Park)’, Koedoe 35(2), 1–9.
Wepener, V., van Vuren, J. H. J. and Du Preez, H. H.: 1999, ‘The implementation of an aquatic toxicity
index as a water quality monitoring tool in the Olifants River (Kruger National Park)’, Koedoe
42(1), 85–96.
Zandbergen, P. A. and Hall, K. J.: 1998, ‘Analysis of the British Columbia water quality index for
watershed managers: A case study of two small watersheds’, Water Qual. Res. J. Can. 33(4),
519–549.